validate_design_spec

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so no repetition credit is needed. The description adds the useful context that validation is 'strict' and scoped to the SAMPLE 2026 system, but it does not disclose validation outcomes (pass/fail vs. violation list) or failure behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence where every word earns its place: 'Validate' states the action, 'proposed' frames the lifecycle stage, 'strict' signals enforcement level, and the four rule areas enumerate scope. No filler, no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a complex input surface (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description says nothing about what the validation produces, what minimal input constitutes a meaningful check, or how draft mode alters strictness. An agent cannot predict the result shape or know whether an empty invocation returns a pass, a warning, or an error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 45%, so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It maps palette/typography/logo/format onto the color/font/logo/dimension parameter groups, but leaves key parameters opaque in both schema and description — notably mode (draft vs. final), assetType, usesLogo, and usesDecorativeElements. The draft/final distinction is especially consequential for a validation tool and is never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('a proposed design'), and the precise standards applied ('strict SAMPLE 2026 brand palette, typography, logo, and format rules'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like validate_svg_artifact and qa_social_layout, which target structural file validity and layout QA rather than brand-compliance review.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through the word 'proposed' (pre-production validation) and the enumerated rule areas, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over validate_svg_artifact, qa_social_layout, or create_social_svg, nor does it offer exclusions. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an inferred lifecycle stage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.